my ISP doesnt block bittorrent traffic, but they told me they bump it to the very bottom of the priority list for traffic. this effectively renders torrent's useless because of the snails pace (~1kbps) at which packets move. is this illegal? it is a small ISP if that matters at all.

I have no real beef with Comcast shaping bittorrent traffic (and I'm a comcast customer that uses bittorrent!) but I do have issues with the supposed means they're using to do so. Forging packets to play havoc with connections is a BAD thing.

blocking is blocking... this is so W to call something obviously one thing another thing... i wonder why there haven't been people suing the government and companies like comcast for stuff like this....

Except it's not delaying at all. They aren't holding the packets around in cache waiting for eventual delivery, something that would cause the transfer to slow itself down in most cases, they are forgint reset packets and sending them to both ends claiming to be the other end saying it doesn't want to talk anymore.

No, there is a difference. Blocking means you can't get your stuff. At all.

Delaying means you get your stuff really slowly. The difference is that if you're "patient", you'll still get your stuff one way.

While maybe I'm assuming incorrectly (now that I reread it), I thought that smokeonit did understand the difference, but was referring to the fact that forging RST packets is in fact blocking and not delaying hence the annoyance with Comcast's wording. I think you are absolutely correct with regard to the difference between delaying and blocking, but an ACK/RST will end the connection right? Data won't get through unless the client (user or user agent) actively attempts to retry. It's not like they are just rerouting the packets via a longer physical route with more latency, or buffers them to forward higher priority traffic first.

I'd expect real mechanisms that merely delayed to increase latency, maybe dramatically, without necessarily having any effect on bandwidth. For example, in routing something from a different country low priority stuff could get sent via satellite links versus undersea cables. Actually, that could be done even across a country too if it was cheaper, but the latency would probably be a lot worse then just going via fiber. That's not what Comcast seems to have been doing though.

Originally posted by Nodachi:Blocking, delaying, in the end both are right.

Neither are right. You are paying for fucking bandwidth. You should be allowed to use it any damn way you please. Its comcast's fault if they sold you too much.

Time for a bad analogy. Lets say you are calling tech support. Comcast's actions would be like an automated voice telling you that tech support has been canceled and not to call back. It certainly wouldn't be like getting put on hold, or even told to call back later. Comcast is actively blocking, plain and simple.

my ISP doesnt block bittorrent traffic, but they told me they bump it to the very bottom of the priority list for traffic. this effectively renders torrent's useless because of the snails pace (~1kbps) at which packets move. is this illegal? it is a small ISP if that matters at all.

Have you tried using a torrent that you know is fast, like Ubuntu?

quote:

blocking is blocking... this is so W to call something obviously one thing another thing... i wonder why there haven't been people suing the government and companies like comcast for stuff like this....

This is exactly what I've been saying since the beginning of all this: if you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs and a tail. Calling it by any other name doesn't change any facts.

quote:

No, there is a difference. Blocking means you can't get your stuff. At all.

Delaying means you get your stuff really slowly. The difference is that if you're "patient", you'll still get your stuff one way.

Why, are they actually caching the data and sending it at a later time? No, they're forging RST packets and assuming that the nodes will attempt connection again after a specified timeout. Considering the system as a whole, it's delaying. But what Comcast is actually doing is blocking.

quote:

Time for a bad analogy. Lets say you are calling tech support. Comcast's actions would be like an automated voice telling you that tech support has been canceled and not to call back. It certainly wouldn't be like getting put on hold, or even told to call back later. Comcast is actively blocking, plain and simple.

Actually...that analogy works quite well! You would probably try to call back a few minutes later, out of disbelief. As part of the "system", it is, "technically", a delay. But, what they are actually doing is "blocking".

Vuze argues that ISPs should be able to manage traffic, but any management needs to be targeted at specific network impact rather than a class of applications (e.g., BitTorrent) and be completely transparent to end users. Comcast and other ISPs are reluctant to divulge exactly what measures they take to shape traffic.

It is from this we should take the hint. Mandate what they are most reluctant to do, and that is to clearly and concisely state their traffic shaping policies and settings.

Time for a bad analogy. Lets say you are calling tech support. Comcast's actions would be like an automated voice telling you that tech support has been canceled and not to call back. It certainly wouldn't be like getting put on hold, or even told to call back later. Comcast is actively blocking, plain and simple.

Actually...that analogy works quite well! You would probably try to call back a few minutes later, out of disbelief. As part of the "system", it is, "technically", a delay. But, what they are actually doing is "blocking".

My hope is that the investigation leads with this question:Okay Mr. Comcast, since you wish to play the game of semantics, please explain in technical terms how you are only delaying, and not blocking, bittorrent requests on your network.

I assume, trying to have faith in my government, the FCC has individuals on staff who will understand the outright lie that Comcast is spewing.

Eventually Comcast will just have a message on its website when bandwidth is high that reads:"Hello, Bittorrent is currently unavailable due to high bandwidth. In an effort to serve all our customers equally we are 'delaying' bandwidth use until the hours of 10PM and 11PM tonight, please try again later."

I'd expect real mechanisms that merely delayed to increase latency, maybe dramatically, without necessarily having any effect on bandwidth. For example, in routing something from a different country low priority stuff could get sent via satellite links versus undersea cables. Actually, that could be done even across a country too if it was cheaper, but the latency would probably be a lot worse then just going via fiber. That's not what Comcast seems to have been doing though.

No, they aren't, but let's get something straight: dramatically increasing latency will have a catastrophic effect on usable bandwidth unless you have some magical transport-layer protocol that is capable of negating the problems associated with bandwidth-delay product.

It shouldn't be lost on anyone that this sort of crap wouldn't be an issue in a truly competitive market. The FCC brought all this along by allowing all the cable/telco consolidation we've seen over the last decade.

Originally posted by epp_b:[QUOTE]my ISP doesnt block bittorrent traffic, but they told me they bump it to the very bottom of the priority list for traffic. this effectively renders torrent's useless because of the snails pace (~1kbps) at which packets move. is this illegal? it is a small ISP if that matters at all.

Have you tried using a torrent that you know is fast, like Ubuntu?

[QUOTE]

i've tried that a while ago, not just Ubuntu, but various linux distro's. it was the reason that prompted my call. so regardless of what im attempting to download, the speed is horrendous.

My performance on ubuntu iso torrents is also horrendous. About 3 minutes of good rates, followed by hours spent sitting at an absolute standstill. (presumably, when Sandvine realizes I'm torrenting.) That's a zero bytes per second standstill, not a a hyberbole standstill.

I hope some slimy lawyers take a big fucking bite out of Comcast with a nice class action suit, in addition to whatever the FCC decides to do.

Originally posted by Nodachi:Blocking, delaying, in the end both are right.

Neither are right. You are paying for fucking bandwidth. You should be allowed to use it any damn way you please. Its comcast's fault if they sold you too much..

Except that has never been the way it is. For example I do not know of one internet provider that allows you run servers on your home line. They all specifically outline in their agreements that if they detect you running a FTP, Webserver, etc. they will shut you down; however, if you wish to run a server you can instead run a business line. Now while I don't agree with Comcast's blocking, I don't see how the FCC could do much IF their agreement stated they didn't want that particular app on THEIR network (not that it does, thus the IF). After all you are using their service and their network. Kind of like you are not free to sell your MMOPRG character, or equipment for real world money because it is the game provider's servers.

I've read all of this Comcast stuff and there's one thing I've been waiting for that I haven't seen; traffic shaping vs. DMCA protection. ISPs are granted protection against being prosecuted for child pornography, bestiality, etc. sent over their networks on the basis that they can't possibly monitor any significant portion of that traffic. It is sent as generic data and they would have to do the extra work of tracking, intercepting and decoding it to search for illegal content. So, does Comcast's traffic shaping negate their DMCA protection? (And, if not, what kind/amount of traffic shaping would?)I grant you (up front) that this argument is a little like using a 20 pound sledgehammer to crack open a walnut. I also ask you what is more important, protecting the practices of a company whose marketing hype has apparently exceeded their capacity to deliver or protecting America's children?

P.S. A 20 pound sledgehammer is useful in an administrative capacity for keeping little fingers out of places where they don't belong.

While I do think that application-specific traffic management of data streams should be illegal, I would find it amusing that the Feds would have the means to document this in the wild in a 'see for yourselves' condition.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BarkingGhost:BTW, have you ever seen a pair-gain facility? Same thing, they oversubscribe the 24 DS0 channels to 96 residential accounts. The 25 called is essentially screwed. [QUOTE]

This doesn't defend Comcast, but this is what Telephone companies, airlines, and many other companies do, and have been doing, for years. The telephone companies, as one example, rely on the fact that not everyone will be on the phone at the same time. It's the reason that you get an 'All Circuits Are Busy' message when you try to make a call at a busy time.

The difference is that Comcast is determining what phone numbers can make a connection, when they can make a connection, and how they can make a connection. Comcast was able to deliver an unfiltered connection for years. Now they apply a filter/block and lie about applying the filter/block. It seems to me, a layman, almost Monopolistic.

What amazes me, and maybe I’m oversimplifying, is that Comcast had a business model delivering cable television to their clients and that was profitable. Now, through the power of TCP/IP, they were able to deliver phone and Internet over those exact same lines at what should be even more of a profit. Granted they may have had to build up their Infrastructure, but that still has to be considerably cheaper than pulling new lines like Verizon. If I were a businessman I would think they would save a lot of money by not forcing people to have their Internet ‘installed’ by contractors. Many of us know how to plug a cable in to a box, give me a chance to try it myself.